`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01520
`Patent No.: 8,559,635
`For: Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
`BY THE PETITIONER WITH ITS REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Personalized Media Communications LLC (“PMC”) hereby
`
`objects pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”) to the admissibility of certain purported evidence served by Petitioner
`
`Apple Inc. on August 3, 2017 in connection with its Reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`Response to Petition for Inter Partes Review. The exhibits objected to, and
`
`grounds for PMC’s objections, are listed below. PMC also objects to Petitioner’s
`
`reliance on or citations to any objected evidence in its papers.
`
`
`
`PMC objects to the Petitioner’s exhibits as follows:
`
`Exhibit
`1049
`
`Basis of Objection
`FRE 401-403 (Relevance, No probative value) – This exhibit is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of wasting time in this proceeding.
`
`1050
`
`FRE 401-403 (Relevance, No probative value) – This exhibit is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of wasting time in this proceeding.
`
`1053
`
`FRE 401-403 (Relevance, No probative value) – PMC objects to
`
`this exhibit to the extent it includes or relies on irrelevant or
`
`inadmissible information and to the extent that it includes or relies
`
`on information the probative value of which is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, wasting time, or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`PMC further objects to this declaration as improper reply evidence
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), which limits replies to arguments
`
`raised in the patent owner response. See also Rules of Practice for
`
`Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial
`
`Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions; Final Rule,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48612, 48620 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Rules of Practice”)
`
`(“Oppositions and replies may rely upon appropriate evidence to
`
`support the positions asserted. Reply evidence, however, must be
`
`responsive and not merely new evidence that could have been
`
`presented earlier to support the movant’s motion.”). This
`
`declaration is improper at a minimum to the extent it addresses
`
`Apple’s evidence submitted with its petition, new evidence
`
`submitted in Apple’s Reply, and/or introduce claim construction
`
`issues that should have been raised with Apple’s petition.
`
`1055
`
`FRE 401-403 (Relevance, No probative value) – This exhibit is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by
`
`the danger of wasting time in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`In addition to the above general objections regarding Mr. Wechselberger’s Reply
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1053), PMC further objects to specific paragraphs, as set forth
`
`below:
`
`Paragraph(s) Basis of Objection
`
`4, 6-8, 9-11
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702/703 (Bases/Reliability of an Expert’s Opinion
`
`Testimony); Fed. R. Evid. 705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (Failure to
`
`Disclose Facts or Underlying Data).
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board Decisions; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48612, 48620
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012) (Exceeds Scope of Reply Evidence);
`
`12-13, 15-16 Fed. R. Evid. 702/703 (Bases/Reliability of an Expert’s Opinion
`
`Testimony); Fed. R. Evid. 705 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (Failure to
`
`Disclose Facts or Underlying Data).
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board Decisions; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48612, 48620
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012) (Exceeds Scope of Reply Evidence);
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 10, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Douglas J. Kline /
`By
`Douglas J. Kline
`Registration No.: 35,574
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`100 Northern Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`(617) 570-1209
`Attorney for Patent Owner Personalized
`Media Communications, LLC
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the:
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
`BY THE PETITIONER WITH ITS REPLY
`
`was served, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.6(e)(1) and the consent found in Section
`III.D of the Petition (Paper No. 1), by electronic mail on counsel for Petitioner at
`the electronic mail addresses set forth below:
`
`
`Marcus E. Sernel, Joel R. Merkin, and Eugene Goryunov
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`P: (312) 862-2000; F: (312) 862-2200
`marc.sernel@kirkland.com
`joel.merkin@kirkland.com
`eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com
`Apple-PMC-PTAB@kirkland.com
`
`Gregory S. Arovas
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`P: (212) 446-4800; F: (212) 446-4900
`greg.arovas@kirkland.com
`
`
`
`Date: August 10, 2017
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
` / Douglas J. Kline /
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`